Try doing this with a P&S

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 8, 2009.

  1. Instead of using the poorest cheapest glass that you can find on the net as
    an example, one of the various name-brands (all from the same company) that
    is bundled with all "beginner's kits" that come from scam-dealers, how
    about a slightly better quality 0.25x wide-angle adapter for P&S cameras
    for under $100. One that goes from an available 9mm full-circle 180º
    fisheye up to the camera's own 36mm starting point when using the camera's
    own zoom lens to set the focal-length. Then you can capture photos like the
    following test shot at an 18mm 35mm-eq. focal-length FOV with your P&S zoom
    lens, pixel-sharp from corner to corner with no CA. 18mm is just before any
    of the full-circle fisheye vignetting starts. The 9mm fisheye images just
    as sharp and CA free. I have another test shot done at 9mm fisheye if you
    don't believe it.

    Are you so lame that you can't find accessory lenses as good as this?
    Raynox accessory glass is also well done but quite a bit higher priced.
    Though the wider range of multipliers they offer can be worth their prices.

    If I was useless troll like you I'd choose every example photo taken with
    an image-destroying "lensbaby" piece of shit to show how all lenses on all
    dslrs perform.

    Why do you keep spreading your ignorance, misinformation, and lies? Is it
    because you're so jealous that you can't own any camera? Is it because you
    know nothing about any cameras or lenses and just spout your nonsense in
    the hopes that you might attract some (just as delusional) imaginary
    "dslr-troll friends" online?
    Exposing The SMS Troll Yet Again, Aug 18, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Oh what the hell, why wait for you to hold your useless troll's breath. No
    time better than now to prove you again for the ignorant troll and fool
    that you are. Here's the 9mm fisheye P&S test-shot from a nearby (within a
    few yards) vantage point and framing.

    Oh look, not even any lens-flare across the image from the sun being in the
    same FOV too taken with a <$100 P&S 0.25x fisheye adapter. What an amazing

    What was it you that were saying about P&S cameras not being capable of
    quality wide-angle shots? I figured this might shut up your troll-spewing
    cesspool pie-hole, if you have the least bit of intelligence that is. I
    won't hold *my* breath waiting for you to display what you don't

    For the rest of you dslr-trolls, I hope you are at least intelligent enough
    to know what are and are not jpg compression artifacts. If not, feel free
    to display your vast dslr-troll's ignorance to the world yet again.
    Exposing The SMS Troll Yet Again, Aug 18, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    -hh Guest

    Actually, I got exactly what I expected ... and wanted :)

    Unfortunately, not waterproof for underwater use.

    Are you so lame that you missed that I explicitly said that my need
    was for underwater use? I can forgive SMS because IIRC, this was his
    first response to my inquiry on this application, but this definitely
    isn't your first time.

    But its not waterproof. My application is for underwater

    Unfortunately, no matter how loudly you are, you simply keep offering
    so-called "solutions" that simply do not work for this UW photography

    And absolutely no one here has been able to produc a parts list to
    show how this capability of super WA underwater can be done today with
    a P&S system instead of a big, expensive housed dSLR.

    I'm looking for a real solution for the real world, little boy.

    -hh, Aug 20, 2009
  4. Are you so self-absorbed that you think I was replying to you and trying to
    help you with your petty personal problems?

    What a freakin' moron.

    But, I could help you. I know of a simple and even inexpensive solution to
    your asinine personal problem.

    Watch me not help you......
    Exposing The SMS Troll Yet Again, Aug 20, 2009
  5. RichA

    -hh Guest

    Of course not. It simply pisses you off to no end that there's a very
    clear application that a P&S cannot do, and you'll jump through all
    sorts of hoops in order to try to deny it.

    In fact, you've been manipulated to jumping through another one of
    these hoops today.

    Oh, I know that you're not going to help, for the simple reason that
    despite your claims, you actually have utterly nothing to offer.

    Being reminded of this simply pisses you off, so you repeat your empty
    claims in your lame attempts to stay in denial. You're quite
    predicable, which is why you're easy to manipulate.

    Now do you have enough willpower to resist jumping through the
    "offered hoop" gauntlet, or will you simply skulk away pissed off in
    silence? I already know the real answer. :)

    -hh, Aug 20, 2009
  6. You already know the real answer just as good as you know the answer to
    your problem.
    Enjoy remaining clueless. LOL!
    Exposing The SMS Troll Yet Again, Aug 20, 2009
  7. RichA

    -hh Guest

    Yup: he's totally owned.

    Want to try for "Roll Over" or "Sit Up" for your next trick, little
    doggy? :)

    -hh, Aug 21, 2009
  8. RichA

    SMS Guest

    Did you miss the second part of my response? There are general purpose
    underwater housings. Not for diving, but good for a few meters. Not a
    great solution, but a workable kludge. Once you kludge things with one
    of those gawd-awful add-on lenses for P&S cameras, no reason to not
    continue the kludge with one of those waterproof flexible enclosures
    that everyone complains about being crap.
    SMS, Aug 21, 2009
  9. RichA

    -hh Guest

    Saw it, but my application is for scuba - that's one reason why the
    "snorkel" stuff gets discarded. FWIW, the hardware that I've been
    looking at has a 200ft rating, as this provides a decent working
    safety buffer. Most of the P&S stuff is only rated to 130fsw, which I
    could probably live with...if the system didn't have any other
    The flexi bags simply don't do the job, since they use the camera body
    as their structure to resist the water pressure: keep in mind that if
    we say that the camera is 2" x 3", the water pressure at just 65fsw is
    equivalent to having a 270lb adult literally *standing* on the

    Plus, there's been many reports over the years where the control
    buttons get depressed (by the water pressure) and then not released
    (same reason): diver has to physically ascend to a shallower depth in
    order to unlock the camera, etc...which is called a "sawtooth"
    profile, which is a known risk factor that increases the likelihood of
    incurring decompression sickness (DCS).

    Another big strike against these klunges is that they can't really
    accomodate a good external strobe system, which is pragmatically
    necessary to 'restore' color when you're deeper than around 30ft (10m)
    depth, as this amount of water absorbs ~99.9% of the red spectrum.
    Plus, one also has to get the strobe light source separated by 1-2ft
    away from the lens in order to minimize backscatter.

    All of these lessons were learned & sorted out very well for film 30
    years ago, and has made the transition to dSLRs.

    Unfortunately for UW P&S, they're only around 2/3rds of the way
    there: the 'frugal' P&S systems don't have a hot shoe, so they don't
    permit one to get the strobes setup fully correctly, due to the
    internal flash & subsequent triggering methods. On the "price no
    object" high end P&Ss, the strobe problem can now be solved, but they
    nevertheless still have the shortcoming that I talked about in that
    they organically can't shoot any wider than 28mm, which then invokes
    various klunge comprimises which invariably sacrifice optical quality.

    The irony of this last point is that this was a "lessons learned" ~20
    years ago, with products such as the aftermarket "Sea&Sea" adaptor
    lenses for the Nikkor 35mm which produced a poor man's 16mm WA...but
    with similarly relatively poor results. Physics dictates that there
    still isn't a substitute for having good glass, and optics
    optimization wants to minimize the number of elements that offer
    opportunities for optical path misallignment(s) froom/during use,
    which excludes use of a non-bayonet 'clip on' lens adaptor. The
    reason why filters get away it is because they're trying to be
    optically transparent.

    -hh, Aug 21, 2009
  10. RichA

    sobriquet Guest

    sobriquet, Aug 21, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.